How the Anti-Evolution Debate Has Evolved

History News Network ^ | 20 December 2005 | Charles A. Israel

[Dimensio]

Yes I can say "without a doubt".

Not in science.

You are using a device right now which is the result of intelligent design. That is a provable fact.

Prove without doubt that my computer was created through intelligent design. I believe that there is very, very strong evidence that my computer came about through such a process, but I don't claim to be able to prove without doubt.

Of course, that's more or less irrelevant because my computer is not capable of imperfect self-replication, nor does it seem to be the direct offspring of anything that is capable of imperfect self-replication. It's a poor analogy.

I'm not assuming anything.

Yes, you are.

There are countless "mechanisms" on living creatures which have a provable purpose.

Purpose implies that they came about as a result of deliberate design. You're assuming your conclusion.

Again, you are using such "purposeful" mechanisms right this very instant. Your EYES. They are highly complex, and have a PURPOSE and FUNCTION.

You have yet to demonstrate that my eyes came about through any deliberate "purpose". They may be "functional" for how I use them, but you've not shown that they are the result of deliberate "purpose".

They are not simply complex structures that occured by random events and are just THERE.

Again, you are stating an undemonstrated conclusion as fact.

Show me one thing in the Universe, which has a provable FUNCTION and PURPOSE, which can be proven to be the result of random events.

That's an oxymoron, because purpose implies deliberate intent. The problem is that you've yet to demonstrate deliberate intent. You're using a loaded term, but you've failed to justify using it.

[RaceBannon]

I was thinking more of Molech...But Marduk could be right, too! ;)

[PatrickHenry]

Perhaps I should stop wasting my time here ...

We all have doubts about debating with some of the characters around here, but in the end, we (on the science side of things) participate for each other. And "for the lurkers" of course. So your time isn't wasted. Carry on.

[GSHastings]

Prove without doubt that my computer was created through intelligent design. I believe that there is very, very strong evidence that my computer came about through such a process, but I don't claim to be able to prove without doubt.

In this one paragraph, you have clearly demonstrated why it is a complete waste of time to try to argue logic with evolutionists (and liberals). Truth could bite you in the arse, but you are utterly unable to recognize it.

[GSHastings]

a) ...it is a trivial exercise to find a "purpose" and "function" for ANY pattern/feature you can come up with. This transform is trivially provable in mathematics; it requires only the application of elementary theorems.

b)Honestly, I do not know why I waste my time pointing out obvious mathematical flaws in ignorant arguments day after day, year after year.

Why don't you employ a) above, to find your answer to b)?

[Dimensio]

In this one paragraph, you have clearly demonstrated why it is a complete waste of time to try to argue logic with evolutionists

Nice cop-out, coward.

[MonroeDNA]

I belive that God created evolution.

I also believe that the bible is a good guide, but nothing more. It was great way back when.

I also believe that there are many, many books since which do a better job of leading people to the path of enlightenment, than the bible. Then again, those books (many on amazon) were not written 1700 years ago.

In other words, we have well progressed beyond what was thought 1700 years ago. But some folks are stuck there.

Good for them. Just realize that the rest of us are not.

[GSHastings]

Nice cop-out, coward.

There's no cop-out involved. I'm not going to waste my time debating anything with someone who isn't sure, without any doubt what-so-ever, that the computer he is using was created by an intelligent being.

Bye

[Dimensio]

I'm not going to waste my time debating anything with someone who isn't sure, without any doubt what-so-ever, that the computer he is using was created by an intelligent being.

IOW, if someone doesn't agree with you from the start, you're not going to bother explaining your position. Which isn't surprising, since you already employed a significant amount of question begging in your previous argument. You're just using this as an excuse to cowardly jump away from the discussion, since you can't justify your presumptions. Even if I accepted that it can be demonstrated "without doubt" that my computer was created by an intelligent being, the rest of your argument is still not logical.

Bye

Enjoy being a coward.